Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-03-02
TEE WILLIS Case.
Acknowledgement Hogg Concludes His
Argument Before the House in
the Judge Willis Case.
The Majority Report OF the Special
Committee Adopted by Vote Of
Sixty Seven 10 Twenty-Five.
The CharSes VIII Be Taken Up by the Sen.
ate AS Special Order Thursday
Morning-1he House Vote.
Special 70 tue Gazette.

cpGCldl 10 tue caZette.
AUSTIN, Tex, March THE Attor-
uey- General continued his argument this
morning in the Judge Willis case. He
said that an address was distinguishable
from an impeachment in this: That an
impeachment was in the nature of
charges originating in the House like the
bill of indictment in the grand jury room.
These charges of the House are presented
to the Senate, which forms the high court
of impeachment. The proceedings are
similar to any court Of judicature. An
address is. for those acts that do not
come under the head of high crimes
and miSdemearors. There are no rules
or precedents governing an address. 1t
is 8 similar proceeding to the passage of
any other joint resolution. The House
can of its own motion refer the charges
to special committee, who after hearing
the testimony can report the facts to the
House upon which they act. The pro-
ceedings in an address are similar to
| those in he case of contested election.
| He said that the House was not without
evidence. The majority presented
chain Of facts and conclusions of the
committee on these facts, charging Judge
| Willis with corruption. The minority did
not justify him and tscitly charged him
with criminal negligence by an apology
! for his conduct. He then read the resO-
! luton g wing the power to the committee
to investigate the charges and adopt
such rules and regulations US they
thought best. They had adopted
! the rules of criminal procedure as
| in other courts. He said that the prose
cution took the position that the proceed
| ings in Judge Willis court were void.
| They were Col!uSiVe aud corrupt, and he
| presented authorities to support mis- posi-
ton, in that the grand Jury was not law
full body. They We're interested parties,
and the finding Of the bills by them was
the defeat of the state in the collection of
| her lawful revenue. Speaking of the
! trials or the agreed testimony Of the law
yers in Judge Willis court, he read the
| law TO show thst the confessions and
| agreements OF the defendants must be
made only after they had been notified,
and it was freely admitted that ID the
cases in Judge Willis court the defend
ants did not even know they had been in
dicted. IN refuting NJ IjGr Wal5ou'5 pO-
sition that the court could try the
defendants without their presence
he read several cases that held
that no lawyer could make statements
Tor his clients thet would have the
force of evidence or be binding on
defendant. Wien Woodman agreed to
remit the le in the punishment against
the defendants ia the unlawful enclosure
cases, Judge Willis then and there had
notice OF the collision between the
District Attorney and the defendant,
| because no power except the jury could
! dispense with the Imprisonment part of
the punishment under the law. In con-
clusion ne asked the Legislature 20 view
Judge Willis as the Judge of the Pan
handle court, surrounded by all the fumes
of corruption evidenced by an interested
grand jury, a partial petit jury, a paid
| District Attorney and Sheriff, and yet he
claimed to be innocent OF knowing that
this fraud was being perpetrated upon
the fair name of justice. If he did not
know It he was too pure to hold any
human Cflice; if he knew it he was too
corrupt 10 even be recognized by decent
people.
When the House convened in afternoon
session, the pending business was the re-
port of the special committee on the
Judge Willis case.
Mr.. Mills moved the previous question
on the ma Irity report, which was
adopted by vote of g. to 81, five being
absent. Those voting yea were: Bell OF
Denton, Baird, Booth, Bransford, Blu
chanan, Camp, Chapman, Clark of Red
River, Cone, Curry, Davis of Falls,